Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#481

Post by dylan604 »

hedora wrote: post #187
anonu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake clicks and bot accounts are two distinct things in my opinion. Bot accounts are bad, fake clicks are much much worse.

It depends on your perspective. As far as I'm concerned the whole target advertising industry is a blight on society. The more click fraud undermines it, the better. On then other hand, bot accounts help get bozos elected, encourage mass shootings, etc. Come to think of it, I don't think it depends on your perspective. Bot accounts are a much bigger issue than click fraud.

But who does the click fraud ultimately hurt? It's not Googs. They get paid for the clicks. The people spending the money on Goog's platform are the ones hurt. Why would Googs want to put a stop to it?

Re: Elon’s Out

#482

Post by striking »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #447
throwaway09223 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose. If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his…

I can't believe people are looking at this from such a silly angle. It's obvious that no court can order you to buy something. That goes against the personal freedom we have in this country, and if a court tried it, it would be an easy appeal. But that misses the point, because nobody is going to order Elon to buy Twitter. What MIGHT happen is, a court declares "Congratulations! You already bought Twitter! It has not…

What are you trying to assert is false about this viewpoint? Specific performance is actually a kind of legal remedy and it can in fact be ordered by a court. It might be one of the last tools in a judge's toolbox, but I don't think it's anywhere near a "silly angle" after a quick googling of "specific performance".

Re: Elon’s Out

#483

Post by wronglyprepaid »

moomin wrote: post #27
alphabetting wrote: post #4

I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…

This is one of those things that could genuinely cause problem for the entire US (corporate) legal system. There’s a genuine danger that the result of this case will be “some people are too powerful to be regulated by the US system, and this is now obvious”.

[flagged]

Re: Elon’s Out

#484

Post by colechristensen »

Victerius wrote: post #465
colechristensen wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Order the legal entities which possess the shares to transfer ownership of them. Actually keeping track of stocks is complicated but ultimately a boring bureaucracy.

Thanks. Further questions: (1) Would it be legal for someone to own the legal entity owning their shares of publicly traded companies? (2) What if he moves all of his stock in offshore accounts?

The one used by most is DTCC, it’s basically owned by the banks who use it, not something that could be bought.

The legal entity which maintains the list of teslas owners is ultimately tesla, but that duty will be likely given to dtcc.

A stock is ultimately just an entry on a list maintained by the company, most offload the managing of the list to DTCC and usually the pointer isn’t to you but to your broker dealer.

There is no sense of being able to hide ownership overseas, we’re talking about an American company keeping a list that points to someone, that list can’t be offshored.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_&_Clearing_...

Re: Elon’s Out

#485

Post by paulpauper »

The stock closed at $36.81 on Friday, and other social-media stocks are down significantly since April. (Snap Inc. is down about 57% since April 13; even Meta Platforms Inc. — Facebook — is down more than 20%.) Meanwhile Tesla Inc. stock, the main source of Musk’s wealth,

Or maybe that was because the overall stock market was down a lot. Meta being down 20$ is about the same as the S&P 500.

Also it is obviously untrue! Companies advertise on Twitter because it sells products!

lol Twitter ads are notoriously expensive. It's mostly big companies buying them to build awareness, not to move product.

Re: Elon’s Out

#486

Post by wronglyprepaid »

v21 wrote: post #72
edgyquant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally there’s not even a hint that Musk is above the law yet you’re calling it a cyberpunk future

There was that whole thing where a court said a lawyer has to check all of his tweets, Musk shrugged it off, and the court did nothing about it.

No post body was provided.

Re: Elon’s Out

#487

Post by w0mbat »

BIG_COMPANY will often start to buy MEDIUM_COMPANY and then find that the other company has looming problems, has been faking user numbers/reviews/accounts etc, and the deal falls through.

I cannot legally name names but this happens all the time.

Re: Elon’s Out

#489

Post by wronglyprepaid »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #49
alphabetting wrote: post #4

I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…

Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.

No post body was provided.

Re: Elon’s Out

#490

Post by Victerius »

colechristensen wrote: post #484
Victerius wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Further questions: (1) Would it be legal for someone to own the legal entity owning their shares of publicly traded companies? (2) What if he moves all of his stock in offshore accounts?

The one used by most is DTCC, it’s basically owned by the banks who use it, not something that could be bought. The legal entity which maintains the list of teslas owners is ultimately tesla, but that duty will be likely given to dtcc. A stock is ultimately just an entry on a list maintained by the company, most offload the managing of the list to DTCC and usually the pointer isn’t to you but to your broker dealer. T…

Thanks. I'm always curious about the practical logistics behind things.
Post reply on HN